Conquest Base Boss Game Play Broken

[Khevar]

No, which is why I already stated my reasoning for why I believe that it's unintended. You made the claim that because it's been outstanding for 3 years that it's not intended.

I made no such claim.

 

Let me help you out.

You'd have a hard time convincing me the devs weren't aware of this as a possibility with conquest commanders.

[paulpdubbs]

I agree completely that this is a broken mechanic, my guild has had the same guy and guild come in and do that to us on over 10 different commanders we even reported the guy and members of that guild for harassment which I think is a good example of harassment, me and a few others even had to resort to hopping on a toon in opposite faction and killing the guy over and over, IMO adding a buff to the group that initially pulls the commander ie. dreadtooth, and having anyone else get 1-shotted w/o that buff would be a simple fix

[MillionsKNives]

I made no such claim.

 

Let me help you out.

 

In that case, if your reply was not trying to say that the mechanic is intentional then why bring up its age and whether they knew about it in response to my post? I won't disagree with you that they likely knew about it, it just doesn't seem like they cared enough to prevent it. That is why I feel it's warranted to tell them that I care and would like it fixed. But that is tangential to the point of my post you responded to, which was that I also believe that the mechanic is an exploit.

[eartharioch]

This has been something guilds have done to each other with world bosses for almost 3 years now (ever tried to kill NM Pilgrim?).

 

You'd have a hard time convincing me the devs weren't aware of this as a possibility with conquest commanders.

 

You'd have a hard time convincing me that awareness equals intent. Also, just because some players have been doing it for years doesn't mean it's a good, fun design. I play on a PVP server, and if there is going to be same-faction "combat", I'd like it to be a bit more exciting than a three-hour tug fest.

[Khevar]

In that case, if your reply was not trying to say that the mechanic is intentional then why bring up its age and whether they knew about it in response to my post?

Looking back on my first post, I think I quoted the wrong part, which is probably why my reply wasn't clear to you.

 

I should have quoted this:

it seems far more likely that this is an edge case that they did not consider nor intend when creating the two intersecting systems (i.e., taunting and evading)

Which is why I said you'd have a hard time convincing me that they weren't aware of this as a possibility.

 

Particularly when my (admittedly limited) understanding of the game engine seems to make fixing this easy-peezy. There are bosses with taunt immunity. It's simply a buff that shows up on their bar. Looking at data posted by <guy that I can't name on the forums without getting in trouble> would tend to indicate that properties such as taunt immunity could potentially be as simple as updating an xml file.

 

Now, just to be clear, I personally would be pleased if named Conquest Commanders were given taunt immunity, were moved further inside bases, and if same-faction healing of a commader auto-flagged the healer for PvP. I think these are changes that would benefit conquests.

 

HOWEVER, you're making an issue about exploits. Only a yellow post could confirm that it is or isn't an exploit.

 

But I believe that a) cross-taunting open world bosses is, and has been, a known activity in this game for years, and b) taunt immunity is an already-developed in-game solution for such a problem and has yet to be implemented for any other open-world bosses.

 

Therefore I say that you're reaching, trying to insist that it is an exploit. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that it detracts from the point you're trying to make. Because you don't know that it is an exploit. And it can be reasonably argued that it ISN'T.

 

So drop the idea that it is an exploit. Shift your argument into how the things you want would improve the gameplay experience.

 

/2cents

Edited September 9, 2014 by Khevar

[MillionsKNives]

Looking back on my first post, I think I quoted the wrong part, which is probably why my reply wasn't clear to you.

 

I should have quoted this:

 

Which is why I said you'd have a hard time convincing me that they weren't aware of this as a possibility.

 

I believe that at the time that they made the two systems that they didn't consider what would happen should the two be combined the way they have been. You have taunting which is meant to make a boss attack you. And you have evading which prevents people from pulling mobs to a place that they shouldn't. I don't think at any point did they think "well this is perfect, since taunting allows me to grab a mob off of someone else (whom it's locked to) and run him away so that he will reset on that person and either make them fight it again or allow me to take it from them". That is where it being unintended comes from. Just because they became aware of the issue later on, and didn't do anything to fix it or avoid it doesn't mean that it was intended functionality.

 

And while yes, I can't prove the developer's intention unless they tell us, I do think I have reasonable grounds to consider that it was unintended.

 

Particularly when my (admittedly limited) understanding of the game engine seems to make fixing this easy-peezy. There are bosses with taunt immunity. It's simply a buff that shows up on their bar. Looking at data posted by <guy that I can't name on the forums without getting in trouble> would tend to indicate that properties such as taunt immunity could potentially be as simple as updating an xml file.

 

Now, just to be clear, I personally would be pleased if named Conquest Commanders were given taunt immunity, were moved further inside bases, and if same-faction healing of a commader auto-flagged the healer for PvP. I think these are changes that would benefit conquests.

 

Agreed.

 

HOWEVER, you're making an issue about exploits. Only a yellow post could confirm that it is or isn't an exploit.

 

But I believe that a) cross-taunting open world bosses is, and has been, a known activity in this game for years, and b) taunt immunity is an already-developed in-game solution for such a problem and has yet to be implemented for any other open-world bosses.

 

Neither of these have any bearing on whether or not the functionality was intended or not. All it means is that if it is an exploit (i.e., an unintended side effect of two separate systems interacting in a way that was not foreseen), they have not felt that it was serious enough to demand attention or fixing.

 

Therefore I say that you're reaching, trying to insist that it is an exploit. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that it detracts from the point you're trying to make. Because you don't know that it is an exploit. And it can be reasonably argued that it ISN'T.

 

So drop the idea that it is an exploit. Shift your argument into how the things you want would improve the gameplay experience.

 

/2cents

 

If people really want to argue semantics over a word that I chose to use then that's their business. I've stated already what I believe should be done to fix the issue.

[deezOneTenTen]

Griefing happens. How is this behaviour not legitimate? There is no rule that prohibits you from taunting an NPC, any NPC at any time.

 

Griefing is against the Rules of Conduct and the ToS.

 

THATS why its not legitimate.

 

It falls under both exploitation and harassment.

 

Under the harassment section of the RoC

http://www.swtor.com/support/helpcenter/1880

Zone Disruption

This refers to disrupting locations within the game so that it inhibits the play of or provides a level of disruption to other players. This can include excessive disruption of player sponsored events or gatherings, excessive use of sounds or visuals, blocking areas of the game, pulling creatures over and over so no one else may kill them, and killing specific vendors, key creatures or quest givers for no reason other than to cause disruption or ‘grief’ to others.

 

Also here for the RoC

http://www.swtor.com/legalnotices/rulesofconduct

Our goal is to build a strong community that offers a comfortable atmosphere for all of our players. This means seeing that players have the ability to combat antisocial behavior

 

Harassment consists of misuse and/or abuse of game mechanics and verbal harassment with the intention of distressing and offending other players.

 

That one can be argued either way because the intent was to steal the boss not necessarily to disrupt the other group, but it can be argued that stealing the boss and forcing a reset is in itself causing the other group disruption.

 

 

Under the exploitation section of the ToS in the game policies

http://www.swtor.com/support/helpcenter/1857

Our Terms Of Service include, but are not limited to, guidelines on in-game harassment, offensive behavior and naming, as well as the use of third-party software or the intentional exploitation of bugs or design flaws in the game for personal advantage. All players must agree to our Terms of Service to play the game and any player found to be in violation of them may have action taken against their account, which can include temporary or permanent account suspension.

 

 

And to those that think making a WB or conquest boss or event boss untauntable basically erases tanks from participating in those events because they would just bring extra healers or DPS if something was uncontrollable anyway. Simply make it so a person outside of the group that pulled originally cannot taunt. Simple as that. The code is already there. They cant loot it if they arent in the group, just change it up so they cant effect it. No attacks, no heals, no taunts. If its red its dead, if its white its aight (meaning leave it alone because you cant do anything to it anyway).

 

 

This problem has been growing more and more over the last few months (was really bad during the rakghoul event). Which is clear evidence that EA and Bioware arent managing their own game. These people have been reported time and time again. Yet they still come in and do it. And because there is no punishment for this behavior, other lemmings fall in line and do it too. Step up CS. Start to manage your game before you lose complete control of it. Once you lose control of it, you lose your good player base and all you'll have are rule breakers that will break your game and put it into the trash bin losing you a truck load of money.

 

 

TBH, I feel this thread is in the wrong place. It should be in the customer service section because this is most definitely a customer service issue. I think the op should link it there so at least we'll know theres a possibility of CS actually seeing it. Maybe a small possibility, but at least they look in there form time to time.

[Kackman]

Once a boss is locked to a specific group, that group should be the only group that can taunt the boss or get credit for the guild. Not competitive enough?

 

This gave me an idea. Instead of making bosses completely immune to taunts - after all, why penalize the tank in the group that first pulled - perhaps it'd be possible to make mobs that are locked/grey to you un-tauntable.